Republic v Land Acquisition Tribunal; Mulu & 55 others & 2 others (Interested Parties); Kenya National Highways Authority (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3411 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ruled KeNHA must challenge the Land Acquisition Tribunal's jurisdiction through an appeal, not judicial review, since the two-member tribunal was properly constituted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the Ex parte Applicant is entitled to leave to institute judicial review proceedings of Certiorari and Prohibition and if the said leave should operate as a stay of proceedings in Tribunal application TRLAP No. E038 OF 2024 and other matters currently pending before the Tribunal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal was properly constituted with quorum to hear TRLAP No. E038 of 2024
The Land Act does not stipulate a quorum; stating only three members, so the two-member Tribunal was properly constituted
Section 133A(1) of the Land Act establishes a three-member Tribunal but contains no express quorum provision. The court found that absence of the third member did not invalidate the Tribunal's functioning, and noted the Ex parte Applicant itself had earlier invoked Section 133C to oust ELC Kitui's jurisdiction, directing parties to the Tribunal.
Whether the Applicant was entitled to leave for judicial review of certiorari and prohibition
No; the issues should have been pursued by appeal under Section 133D of the Land Act, not judicial review
The court held the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was properly a matter for appeal. Leave requires an arguable case fit for further investigation; the court found none given the Tribunal's proper constitution and the availability of the appellate route.
Whether leave should operate as a stay of Tribunal proceedings
Moot as leave was denied
Order 53 rule 1(4) permits the judge to direct that leave operate as a stay, but since leave was refused, no stay issued. The Interested Parties had also argued stay would impede compensation claims of Project Affected Persons protected under Article 40.
Legal principles established
#- Leave for judicial review is granted only where, on the material available, there is an arguable case fit for further investigation at a full inter partes hearing
- Prohibition lies against an inferior tribunal acting in excess or absence of jurisdiction, but not to correct course, practice or procedure or a wrong decision on the merits
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Chamber Summons application dated 20th December 2024
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; tribunal established under Section 133A of the Land Act
Relief refused
#Leave to apply for a declaration that the Respondent Tribunal as constituted lacks jurisdiction and/or judicial authority
The Tribunal was properly constituted and had jurisdiction; issues should have been raised on appeal, not judicial review
Order of prohibition against the Tribunal
Leave denied; the quorum of the Tribunal was properly constituted
Order of certiorari quashing the Tribunal proceedings and ruling of 22nd November 2024
Leave denied for the same reasons
Leave to operate as a stay of Tribunal proceedings
Not granted as leave was refused
Costs
Dismissed with no order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Based on the facts before me including the stipulated legal provisions and quoted decisions, I find that the quorum of the Tribunal was properly constituted and it had jurisdiction to handle the aforementioned claim before it.
I opine that the issues raised by the Ex parte Applicant should have been dealt with in an Appeal and not a judicial review forum.
I hence find that the Ex parte Applicant is not entitled to leave as sought.
I find the Chamber Summons application dated the 20th December 2024 unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Party roles are inconsistent: the National Land Commission and others are listed in the cause title as Respondents/Interested Parties but the ex parte Applicant's affidavit refers to the 1st Interested Party and a 3rd Interested Party without a full listing of all parties in the judgment
The Respondent Tribunal is stated to be established under Section 133A of the Land Act as a creature of statute, yet the Respondent describes itself as 'a subordinate court established under Article 169 (1) (d) of the Constitution' that cannot be sued for its judicial decisions; both passages appear without reconciliation
The judgment does not state its own case number or the parties before the High Court/ELC in the coram; the case number field had to be inferred from the chamber summons described
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya National Highways Authority v Mandev Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E050 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3949 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3949 (KLR)30 Jun 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Land Acquisition Tribunal; Mulu & 55 others & 2 others (Interested Parties); Kenya National Highways Authority (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3411 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application re Chamber Summons dated 20th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3411/eng@2025-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.